Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/200,968

PLUG CUTTING TOOL AND RELATED METHOD OF USE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 23, 2023
Examiner
DO, NHAT CHIEU Q
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
National Nail Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
393 granted / 618 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
690
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
38.3%
-1.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
§112
33.3%
-6.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 618 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of group I, corresponding claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-20 have been unelected and cancelled. Applicant adds new claims 21-27, which are distinct from the invention of claims 1-10. Claim 21 recites “boring a groove below a donor board face with a rotating tool that penetrates the donor board face to form a plug centered in the groove” (emphasis added) is distinct compared to the invention of claim 1 “boring a groove below the donor board face with the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge to form a plug located radially closer to the tool longitudinal axis than the groove” and “tilting the tool longitudinal axis relative to the plug” (emphasis added). Since applicant elected the invention of group I, corresponding claims 1-10, therefore, the invention of claims 21-27 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group. Thus, claims 1-10 are examined below. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification (44 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1,10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haughton et al (US 2003/0031521) hereinafter Haughton in view of Frank (US 8770897). Regarding claim 1, Haughton teaches a method of producing a plug (22) for installation in a board (Para. 2 “Wooden plugs are often used to fill round holes in a workpiece to conceal fasteners and screws that have been set below the surface of a workpiece”), the method comprising: rotating a tool (10, Figure 4), including a first cutting edge (30) and a second cutting edge (34) about a tool longitudinal axis (37); engaging the first cutting edge against a donor board to penetrate a donor board face of the donor board (42), the donor board face (an upper surface) including an aesthetic exterior surface (see Figure 7, it is a flat surface and see Para. 2 “a wooden plugs”); boring a groove (Figure 7 below) below the donor board face with the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge to form a plug (22, Figure 7 and Para. 25) located radially closer to the tool longitudinal axis than the groove, the plug retaining the aesthetic exterior surface along a plug face in a plug upper portion (Figure 7, a portion near an upper surface of the plug 22), the plug including a plug sidewall (a side of the plug 22, Figure 7) facing the groove, and a plug lower portion (where the portion 26 and the portion 24 meet together, Figure 1) located below the plug upper portion; and while rotating the tool, to taper the plug so that the plug is inwardly tapered between the plug upper portion and the plug lower portion (see Figure 1 and Para. 24 “The tapered plug 22, also shown in FIG. 1, formed by the cutter 10 has a tapered portion 24 and a cylindrical portion 26, such that the cylindrical portion 26 is at the minor diameter end of the tapered portion 24”), wherein the plug face includes a first diameter greater than a second diameter of the plug lower portion (the diameter at the upper surface of the plug 22 is greater than a second diameter of the plug lower portion or the minor diameter end as seen in Figure 1). However, Haughton fails to discuss a step of tilting the tool longitudinal axis relative to the plug. Frank shows a hole saw tool (352, Figure 8) that is tilted relative with an upper surface of a workpiece (326). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Haughton to have a saw tool to be tilted relative with an upper surface of a workpiece, as taught by Frank, in order to allow producing angular plugs for angular fastening screws on the board. Regarding claim 10, he modified method of Haughton teaches all of the limitation as stated above except engaging a stabilizer of the tool against the donor board face to impair the first cutting edge from walking across the donor board face as the tool rotates. Frank also shows a stabilizer of the tool (841, Figure 16) against a board face (826) to impair a cutting edge of the tool (852) from walking across the board face as the tool rotates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Haughton to have a stabilizer, as taught by Frank, in order to allow stabilizing the tool relative with the board during angular or tilting boring. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haughton et al (US 2003/0031521) hereinafter Haughton in view of Frank (US 8770897) and Reimels (US 4456010). Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Haughton teaches all of the limitation as stated above except a limiter above the first cutting edge and above the second cutting edge and engaging the limiter to cease advancement of the tool into the donor board (as it is written, it is unclear the limiter engages to what) and provide a predetermined plug height of the plug from the plug face to a plug bottom. Reimels shows a saw (Figure 3) having a tool cutting edge (32) and a limiter (73, Col. 6 lines 53-61 “Sleeve 70 also includes an outwardly extending flange 73 extending circumferentially about its distal end to provide a stop for the forward motion of the drill” that means the flange 73 engages the workpiece to prevent the forward motion of the drill). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Haughton to have a limiter, as taught by Reimerls, in order to allow to provide a stop for the forward motion of the drill during boring the groove. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims do not anticipate or render obvious the features of: the plug includes a plug longitudinal axis that extends orthogonal to the plug face during the boring step, wherein the tilting step includes offsetting the tool longitudinal axis by a tilt angle from the plug longitudinal axis, wherein the tilt angle is 1° to 30° (emphasis added) as set forth in claim 3; wherein the plug includes a plug longitudinal axis that extends orthogonal to the plug face during the boring step, wherein the plug includes a third cutting edge transversely oriented relative to the first cutting edge, wherein the third cutting edge moves inward toward the plug longitudinal axis under the plug face during the tilting step, wherein the third cutting edge tapers the plug sidewall of the plug as the third cutting edge moves inward toward the plug longitudinal axis as the tool rotates (emphasis added) as set forth in claim 4; producing a groove perimeter around the groove with the second cutting edge; producing an outer groove sidewall below the groove perimeter with the second cutting edge; and engaging a bearing surface of the tool against the groove perimeter during the tilting step, wherein the bearing surface is void of any cutting edge (emphasis added) as set forth in claim 5; engaging a non-cutting bearing surface of the tool, located above the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge, against a groove perimeter, which transitions to the donor board face, during the tilting step to leverage a third cutting edge against the plug sidewall and produce an inward taper between the plug upper portion and the plug lower portion (emphasis added) as set forth in claim 6; moving a third cutting edge of the tool below the plug face a distance so that the plug face is disposed in a plug relief cavity before the tilting step and engaging the third cutting edge with the plug sidewall to remove material from the plug sidewall during the tilting step, but not from the plug face (emphasis added) as set forth in claims 7-8; and providing a bearing surface above the second cutting edge; and pressing the bearing surface against a groove perimeter to leverage a third cutting edge of the tool against the plug sidewall to produce an inward taper on the plug sidewall below the plug face, while retaining a diameter of the plug face produced by the first cutting edge so that the diameter remains constant as the third cutting edge removes a material from the plug sidewall below the plug face (emphasis added) as set forth in claim 9. Based on the steps above, there appears to be no justification to modify the above mentioned references, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cousineau (US 2012/0051860) shows a tool bit is tilted during boring or drilling (Figure 11). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/17/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 23, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604699
PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600047
Safety Knife
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583140
Electrode Cutting Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576547
RAZOR BLADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564891
SPIN-SAW MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.1%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 618 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month